\' 



E 215 



.H5 
Copy 1 



tiatJffiSS 



( Hyju-^^'*'^'^*'^ vTzir ^^i-<^>^<^ '/■■ ^-^ 



-X 




THE MECKLENBURG DECLARATION 
OF INDEPENDENCE 



.<i-u A 



/ f // 



t- 



.'] 



[Reprinted from the Mississippi Valley Historical ReTiew, Vol. V, No. 2, September. 1018] 



NOTES AND DOCUMENTS 

The Mecklenburg Declaeation of Independence 

In the course of some studies of the events of the decade pre- 
ceding the revolution with especial reference to Virginia, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky, I have 
again and again during the past dozen years encountered new 
evidence directly or remotely bearing upon events in Charlotte, 
Mecklenburg county, North Carolina, in May, 1775. This evi- 
dence became so cumulative in the course of time that it seems 
desirable, in the interest of historical truth, to set it forth for 
general consideration.^ 

In chief measure owing to the fact that certain natives of 
North Carolina, of accredited reputation as historical students, 
have rejected the contention that Mecklenburg county. North 
Carolina, declared herself free and independent of Great Britain 
on May 20, 1775, it is believed that American historians as a rule 
have followed their lead, without busying themselves in first- 
hand study of the subject. Indeed, it is customary for historical 
writers, sometimes on apparently slight grounds, to observe that 
"authorities are united in discrediting the so-called Mecklen- 
burg Declaration of May 20, 1775."^ 

The most serious blow ever given to the contention that Meck- 
lenburg county declared her independence on May 20, 1775, was 
unwittingly dealt by Peter Force in the discovery in 1838, of the 
record of a series (incomplete) of resolves dated Charlotte Town, 
Mecklenburg county, May 31, 1775, in the Massachusetts Spy or 
American Oracle of Liberty, of July 12, 1775.' It will be recalled 

1 Cf. my adflress, "The revolution in North Carolina in 1775," delivered in Char- 
lotte on May 19, 1916, and published in Charlotte Observer, May 20, 1916. It was 
afterward privately ]>rinted in pamphlet form. Important evidence not cited there 
is embodied in the present communication. 

2 Edward Chanuing, History of the United States (New York, 1905-), 3: 161, n. 1. 

3 Nine years later, the entire series of resolves was found printed in the South 
Carolina Gazette and Country Journal, June 13, 1775, and since that time these re- 
solves have been found in a number of contemporary newspapers. 



208 Notes and Documents m.v.h.r. 

that the original minutes of the convention, kept by John Mc- 
Knitt Alexander, the secretary, were burned when his house was 
destroyed by fire in 1800 ; and the claim for a declaration on May 
20, 1775, only sprang into prominence some nineteen years after 
the records were bui'ned. The publication in 1819 of the claim 
for a declaration on May 20 and the publication by the state of 
North Carolina in 1831 of a pamphlet containing the testimony 
of a considerable number of eyewitnesses and participants in the 
proceedings eventuating in the alleged declaration laid the foun- 
dations of evidence for those who contend for a declaration on 
May 20. 

It was the sensational discovery in 1838, and again, more com- 
pletely, in 1847, of a series of resolves of date May 31, 1775, 
which soon gave rise to the belief that the eyewitnesses and par- 
ticipants, in testifying to an unconditional declaration of inde- 
pendence on May 20, were in reality imperfectly recalling the 
resolves of May 31, which assert conditional independence. The 
alleged declaration of May 20 is now very generally believed, 
principally on the evidence cited above, to be an involuntary 
figment of the fancy ; and hence it has been called a myth. The 
whole remarkable story of the Mecklenburg declaration of inde- 
pendence has been cleverly termed "a strange and almost in- 
credible story of the fallibility of human memory." 

Since the original records kept by the secretary of the conven- 
tion were burned in 1800, no draft conclusively demonstrated to 
have been copied from the alleged original declaration has come 
to light. Moreover, no strictly contemporaneous record, namely 
of the year 1775, testifying that the people of Mecklenburg coun- 
ty declared themselves free and independent of Great Britain 
on May 20, 1775, has yet been discovered. A remarkable allu- 
sion to the matter, however, is contained in an historical paper 
written in German by Traugott Bagge in 1783, of which the fol- 
lowing is a literal translation: 

"I cannot leave unmentioned at the end of the 1775th year 
that already in the summer of this year, that is in May, June, 
or July, the County of Mecklenburg in North Carolina declared 
itself free and independent of England, and made such arrange- 
ments for the administration of the laws among themselves, as 



Vol. V, No. 2 j'jig Mecklenburg Declaration 209 

later the Continental Congress made for all. This Congress, 
however, considered these proceedings premature."* 

The passage reads as follows: "Ich kan zu ende 1775sien 
Jahres nicht unangemerkt lassen, dasz schon im Sommer sel- 
bizen Jahres, dasz ist im May, Juny, oder July, die County 
Mecklenburg in Nord Carolina sich fuer so frey u. independent 
von England declarirte, u. solche Einrichtung zur Verwaltung 
der Geseze unter sich machte, als jamalen der Continental Con- 
gress hernach ins Ganze gethan. Dieser Congress aber sahe 
dieses Verf ahren als zu f ruehzeitig an. ' ' 

During the course of my researches along wholly different 
lines, a new field of inquiry presented itself to me with reference 
to two circumstances directly connected with the unimpeachable 
evidence now accessible. This inquiry resolved itself into two 
parts. 

The question to be settled, if possible, is the source of Bagge's 
information. Here is an indisputable reference to an uncondi- 
tional declaration of independence. If it could be shown that, 
although he did not make his record until 1783, he learned the 
facts recorded, in 1775, and from an eyewitness and participant 
in the proceedings which eventuated in a declaration of inde- 
pendence, this would establish the contemporaneousness of his 
information. 

Another question to be settled is one of fact in regard to the 
date of the meeting at which independence was declared. No 
contemporaneous draft of such a declaration, if such declaration | -^ 
were made, is known to be extant. The secretary of the conven- 
tion, John McKnitt Alexander, left a series of notes indubitably 
made in 1800 or later, in which he states among other things, 
that on May 20, 1775, 

"1". We (the County) by a Solemn and aivfull vote, Dis- 
solved our allegiance .to King George & and British Nation. 

"2^. Declared our selves a free & independent people, having 

* Adelaide L. Fries, The Mecl'leniurg declaration of independence as mentioned 
in the records of Wachovia (Raleigh, N. C, 1907). So strikingly confirmatory was 
this entry of the century-old claims for a Mecklenburg declaration of independence 
that its discovery in 1904 once more projected the much-mooted subject into the field 
of national discussion. 



210 Notes mid Documents m.v.h. e. 

a riffhf and capable to govern ourselves (as a part of North Car- 
olina).'" 

The historians who question the contention that a declaration 
of independence was made in Charlotte on May 20, 1775, main- 
tain that John McKnitt Alexander, in referring to a declaration 
made on May 20, was thinking of the series of resolves passed on 
May 31. The real question to be decided, from independent 
sources and by irrefutable documentary evidence strictly con- 
temporaneous, is the actual date of the meeting on which inde- 
pendence was declared. Was it May 19-20, and an unconditional 
declaration of independence, of which no copy of the original is 
now known to be extant? Or was it May 30-31, and a conditional 
declaration of independence, reproduced as a series of resolves 
in a number of contemporary newspapers? 

A considerable number of participants, eyewitnesses, or men 
who recorded directly the statements of participants and eye- 
witnesses, have given testimony in regard to events in Mecklen- 
burg county in May, 1775. The testimony of those who, by rea- 
son of active participation in the events themselves or because 
possessed of unusually acute memory are best qualified to judge, 
is explicit on three points, viz. : that the convention met first on 
May 19; that the news of the battle of Lexington (April 19, 
1775) reached Charlotte on May 19; and that it tvas the dramatic 
arrival of this startling news ivhich immediately precipitated the 
unconditional declaration of independence on the following day, 
May 20, 1775.^ 

The genuine significance of this collocation of the date of one 
event with that of another has hitherto escaped the thoughtful 
attention of historical investigators. When the eyewitnesses 
gave their testimony (1819-1830), no draft of the resolves of 
May 31, passed by the small group of the committee of safety, 
had come to light. Nothing in after years could so conclusively 
have refuted the testimony of the participants as their identifica- 

5 A minutely accurate copy of these notes, of unquestioned validity, is preserved 
among the Bancroft transcripts in the New York public library. A photographic 
facsimile is in Hoyt's The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence (New York, 
1907), beginning opposite p. 126. 

Testimony of the witnesses is given in detail in my address, ' ' The revolution in 
North Carolina in 1775," in Charlotte Observer, May 20, 1916. 



Vol. V, No. 2 j'/jg Mecklenburg Declaration 211 

tion of the date of the first day of the two-days' meeting by 
means of the date of some other happening. The skeptics in 
regard to the "Mecklenburg declaration of independence" as- 
severate, without proof, that there was and could have been no 
meeting on May 19 and 20, on which latter date independence 
was declared. The participants and eyewitnesses, who were 
present and heard the declaration read, in the lapse of years 
might well have forgotten the exact phrases of the declaration, 
but not its explicit assertion of unconditional independence; 
they might, by an almost infinite stretch of the imagination, have 
all forgotten exactly the same way, and recalled incorrectly the 
dates May 19 and 20 ; but it appears mentally inconceivable and 
psychologically impossible that they could also have forgotten 
the same way on another fundamental point, viz. — that the ar- 
rival of the news of the battle of Lexington was the soul-stir- S 
ring, revolutionary event which precipitated an unconditional 
declaration of independence. 

The pivot upon which this phase of the classic controversy 
resolves is the query: On what date did 'the news of the battle 
of Lexington actually reach Charlotte?' 

If it could be shown that the news of the battle of Lexington 
first reached Charlotte on May 30, it would completely demon- 
strate that the participants, in speaking of a declaration of in- 
dependence on the day following the arrival of the news, were 
imperfectly recalling the resolves of May 31. If, however, it is 
proven that the news of the battle of Lexington first reached 
Charlotte on May 19, this fact completely demonstrates that the 
popular convention actually did take place on May 19 and 20, 
1775. If the actual participants and eyewitnesses are entitled 
to more credence than "witnesses" now living, then the testi- 
mony of the former is conclusive that the unconditional declara- 
tion was made by the popular convention, and by no other body, 
on the second day of the two-days ' meeting as the result of the 
arrival of the news of the battle of Lexington on the first day. 

In the effort to resolve this question, I have studied the routes 

7 This line of research which I have employed is a new avenue from which to ap- 
proach the problem. This point is wholly missed or evaded by Hoyt, whose book, 
The Mecklenburg declaration of independence, while tlioroughly illogical at many 
points, exhibits the methods of the trained historical investigator. 



212 Notes and Documents m.v.h.r. 

of travel over which couriers must have passed in bringing the 
news southward from Philadelphia, leaving there on April 25. 
Everywhere the injunction, sometimes fervently endorsed on 
the very despatch itself, was to send the news on without the 
slightest delay, and to disseminate it throughout the adjoining 
counties. By a series of contemporary records, made in the 
year 1775 and fully attested, I have proven that the news of the 
battle of Lexington actually did reach Charlotte on May 19, 
1775 — for example, reaching Salem, slightly more than a day's 
journey from Charlotte, on May 17, and Anson Court House, 
slightly farther than Charlotte from Salem, about May 20.' 
This investigation indisputably fixes the date of the popular con- 
vention as May 19 and 20, 1775, and not May 30 and 31, 1775. It 
furthermore indisputably establishes, on the evidence of the par- 
ticipants and eyewitnesses, that the county of Mecklenburg 
through a popular convention declared itself free and independ- 
ent of Great Britain on May 20, 1775, and not on May 31, 1775. 
For it is agreed by the participants and eyewitnesses that it was 
the popular convention, and no other body, which made an un- 
conditional declaration of independence on the second day of the 
two-days' meeting, as the result of the arrival of the news of 
the battle of Lexington on the first day. The action of May 31, 
at a meeting on this one day only, was the action of an entirely 
different and much smaller body, namely, the committee of pub- 
lic safety of Mecklenburg county who at this, their first meeting, 
voted to send copies of the various proceedings by an express 
rider. Captain James Jack, to the continental congress at Phil- 
adelphia. 

In 1783, Trangott Bagge recorded in his Bruchstiick that the 
county of Mecklenburg in 1775 (May, June or July) " declared 

8 Travel on foot would have brought the news to Charlotte on May 25, by rider at 
a rapid rate of speed on May 13. As instance of the absurdity of the contention 
that the news first reached Charlotte on May 30 is the fact that the news actually 
reached Boonesborough, Kentucky, passing over one of the worst roads on the con- 
tinent, just cut out by Daniel Boone and his axemen in the employ of Colonel Richard 
Henderson, on May 29. See R. Henderson's diary, Draper manuscripts, 1CC21-130, 
Wisconsin historical society. For an elaborate treatment of the subject, see my j\rticle, 
"The revolution in North Carolina in 1775," in Charlotte Observer, May 20, 1916. 

Bl am able to state precisely, on the basis of recorded facts, the reason why 
Bagge was uncertain as to the date within the limits given. Bagge knew that the 
declaration was made after the arrival in May of the news of the battle of Lexington. 



Vol. V, No. 2 The Mecklenburg Declaration 213 

itself ' * f rey u. independent von England. ' ' Captain James Jack, 
according to his attested certificate of December 7, 1819, was 
present when the county of Mecklenburg declared itself free and 
independent of England ; as an express rider especially commis- 
sioned for that purpose he bore the "Mecklenburg declaration 
of independence, " as he termed it, to Philadelphia and there de- 
livered it to the delegates to congress from North Carolina. If 
anyone living in the year 1775 knew the exact nature of the 
paper, such as, for example, that it was an unconditional declara- 
tion of independence, it surely was Captain James Jack. For he 
was present when it was, as he says, ' ' publicly proclaimed from 
the court-house door in the town of Charlotte"; he heard it read 
aloud again, as he records, by Colonel William Kennon in Salis- 
bury, while on his way to Philadelphia ; and moveover, as bearer, 
unpledged to secrecy, of the copies of the proceedings in Char- 
lotte, which he termed the "Mecklenburg declaration of inde- 
pendence," he was without doubt accurately informed as to its 
exact nature and purport. If Bagge received his information 
from Jack in 1775, then his testimony is both authentic and es- 
sentially contemporaneous. 

In a circular letter dated June 19, 1775, addressed to the town 
and county committees of safety, written by Richard Caswell 
and signed with his own name and those of his North Carolina 
colleagues in the continental congress, William Hooper and 
Joseph Hewes, Caswell urged his constituents to form them- 
selves into militia companies and to be in readiness to resist 
force by force. Caswell sent copies for the western counties of 
North Carolina during the last week in June, 1775, "by a man," 
said a member of the New Bern committee, "who was going 
from Philadelphia to Mecklenburg county."'" Who was this 
man and did he see Bagge? He bore with him copies of Cas- 
well's circular letter for the committees of safety of Surry, 

He also knew that it was made before the organization of the Surry county com- 
mittee of public safety in August; for the very man who brought the news of the 
declaration also brought a letter addressed to that committee before it was even in 
existence. Compare Salem diary and Aeltesten Conferenz Frotokoll. Had Bagge, in 
writing his "Fragment," referred to the Salem diary of July 12, 1775, he might 
have narrowed the limits of his uncertainty by omitting the word July." 

10 Colonial records of North Carolina, 10 : 65, 66, 85. For Caswell 's letter, ibid., 
10 : 23. 



214 Notes and Documents m.v. h. e. 

Rowan, Mecklenburg, and Anson counties. Who saw him arrive 
at Salem, consulted with him, and received from him a copy of 
Caswell's letter? Captain Jack was in Philadelphia on June 
23;" and "returned with a long, full, complasent letter from s^ 
3 members, recommending our seal, perseverance order & for- 
bearance &c."" " The arrival of the messenger at Salem, North 
Carolina, on July 7, is recorded in a historical sketch written in 
1783 by an eye witness," admits Hoyt himself. The name of the 
author of this sketch is not given by Hoyt. 

The natural surmise is that Bagge derived his information 
that "Mecklenburg county declared itself free and independent 
of England" from Jack. The striking evidence to that effect 
is now before us, derived from the Moravian archives. The eye- 
witness of the messenger's arrival, the author of the historical 
sketch of 1783, whose name is withheld by Hoyt, was none other 
than Traugott Bagge." The entry of this very date (July 7, 
1775) in the Salem diary, a diary of communal life kept unbroken 
from 1752 to the present time, reveals the identity of the mes- 
senger, who indubitably informed Traugott Bagge that Meck- 
lenburg county had declared itself "frey u. independent von 
England" and handed him a letter which was a duplicate of the 
one he bore to the committee of safety of Mecklenburg county. 
This messenger was none other than Captain James Jack. The 
entry is as follows : 

"July 7, 1775. Diesen Nachmittag uberlieferte ein Mann aus 
dem Mecklenburg der als ein Expresser von dort zum Congress 
in Philadelphia geschickt worden war auf seinem Eetour, wieder 
ein Circular, an Mr. Traugott Bagge addressiert; selbiges war 
unterschrieben von Hooper, Hewh and Casewill; es enthielt 
eben ein encouragemext zum Gewehr zu grief en, etc. . ."^* 

The English translation is as follows : 

This afternoon a man of Mecklenburg, who had been sent as 

11 Joint certificate of Alphonso Alexander, Amos Alexander, and Joseph McKjiitt 
Alexander, cited in Hoyt, The Mecklenburg DecJaratwn of Ind-ependence, 66-67. 

12 Not^s of John JIcKnitt Alexander, secretary of the convention, in Bancroft 
transcripts, New York public library. 

13 Letter of Miss Adelaide L. Fries to the writer, June 7, 1916. The original 
historical sketch, in Bagge 's unmistakable handwriting, is now in the archives in 
Salem, whence it had formerly been removed to Bethania, North Carolina. 

1* I was greatly assisted in this research by Miss Adelaide L. Fries, curator of the 
Moravian archives at Salem, who at my request made a close examination, and also 



Vol V, No. 2 The Mecklenburg Declaration 215 

an express from there to congress in Philadelphia, upon his re- 
turning journey delivered here a circular addressed to Mr. Teau- 
GOTT Bagge ; the same was signed by Hoopek, Hewh, and Case- 
will; it actually contains an encouragement to take up arms, 
etc. 

To resume, this research exhibits two remarkable specimens 
of evidence, based on contemporaneous documentary records, 
indicating that Mecklenburg county declared itself free and inde- 
pendent of Great Britain, and that this unconditional declara- 
tion of independence was made on May 20, 1775. 

1. The men who participated in the proceedings in May, 1775, 
assert that they declared themselves free and independent of 
Great Britain on the day immediately following the arrival of 
the news of the battle of Lexington. It is shown herein that 
the news arrived in Charlotte on May 19. Ergo, the county of 
Mecklenburg declared itself free and independent of Great Brit- 
ain on May 20, 1775. 

2. There is herein established the essential contemporaneity 
of Traugott Bagge 's assertion that in 1775 (May, June, or July) 
Mecklenburg county declared itself "frey u. independent von 
England." For it is shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, that 
Bagge received this information from the bearer of the "Meck- 
lenburg declaration of independence" to Philadelphia, Captain 
James Jack, on his return from that place during the course of a 
brief stop at Salem, North Carolina, on July 7, 1775. 

Archibald Henderson 

aided me in my own personal examination, of the Salem diary. Among the papers 
found by Miss Fries in the Moravian archives, bare announcement of the discovery 
of which was made in December, 1914 (cf. Publications of the North Carolina his- 
torical commission, Bulletin 18 [1915], p. 55), is CasweU's circular letter of June 
19, 1775, delivered by Captain James Jack to Traugott Bagge on July 7, 1775. 



LIBRPRY OF CONGRESS 

I 



■SI 



^ 011 699 946 8 








